On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 11:17, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>
> Summary: it seems that tidy/untidy is an implementation detail...
[...]
> My conjecture is that there is no way to distinguish whether an
> application deploys tidy or untidy semantics.
>
> Therefore, it's an
> implementation detail, which matters only for defining a standard,
> W3C-blessed RDF API, and is irrelevant for the spec we are working on.
False; here's the test case:
============
consider a similar example:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
<foo:age>10</foo:age>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="Film">
<foo:title>10</foo:title>
</rdf:Description>
Though the title of the film and the age of Jenny are both written as an
[...]
The formal definition of this question is whether, given the second of
the
RDF fragments above, entails (implies) the following (expressed in
n-triples):
<jenny> foo:age _:l .
<film> foo:title _:l .
============
-- Semantics of non-datatyped literals: Rationale (version 1)
From: Brian McBride (bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com)
Date: Mon, Sep 30 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0364.html
We have several pieces of code that one can test using this
test case (cwm, euler, some graph matching code that
Jan uses, Jena, others?). The WG owes the community a
clear yes/no answer to whether that entailment holds.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/